Posted
by
kdawson
on Saturday September 26, 2009 @03:40PM
from the background-music-by-disaster-area dept.

aaandre sends word of the use of a "sound cannon" on G20 protesters in Pittsburgh. Only a few hundred protesters took to the streets. The NY Times notes: "City officials said they believed it was the first time the sound cannon had been used publicly." The device projects a narrow beam of extremely annoying sound, at levels that can reach 151 decibels, over a distance of a mile or more. The Guardian notes, "It is feared the sounds emitted are loud enough to damage eardrums and even cause fatal aneurysms." Officials of the company that manufactures the sound cannon say that ear damage is only possible if someone manages to stand directly in front of the device for an extended period.

If he's a protester, I am curious just what he thinks he's accomplishing? For the life of me, I have no idea what they're protesting about, or what their problem with the G20 and every other type of international economic summit is, or what they think they can do about it. If their goal is to "get the word out"; well, they're doing a really shitty job.

As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.

Yes, certainly that's precisely what one would think if one made no attempt whatsoever to research the event or the movement beyond asking a third party for a hearsay opinion on slashdot. And why would you? it's not like there's any information [blogspot.com] available on the internet [socialistworker.org] or anything.

Yes, certainly that's precisely what one would think if one made no attempt whatsoever to research the event or the movement beyond asking a third party for a hearsay opinion on slashdot. And why would you?

Exactly: why would I go out of my way to try to figure out why some nutjobs are doing what they're doing? If I hear about the police using rubber bullets and sound canons and whatever else, but I have no idea why you were protesting, then your protest has completely and utterly failed, and you need to rethink your strategy.

Are you just.. generally protesting the existence of the G20? OK, but... should the leaders of these countries not talk to each other about economic issues? Do you have any construc

If it's just a minority of people who are doing it, I have a suggestion: turn those people over to the cops and tell the cops that you want peace.

"those people" are usually undercover policemen. The cops generally do not want peaceful demonstrations, since they reduce control options. You can hand-carry each individual non-violent protester from the ground to a waiting van, or you can get one of your guys to throw a brick from within their ranks and bust out the tear gas and water cannons. It's easy to do, effective, and practically impossible to stop.

According to this guy [wsj.com], they aren't particularly organized and have nothing much in common other than they are unhappy with the world, and the G20 meeting seems like a good time to protest it. When the police showed up there were more people trying to film the police than there were actually protesting. The police looked annoyed and one of the most active participants was John Oliver from The Daily Show. I know some people just like protesting. It's kind of fun.

Although it really doesn't do much. Unless you are trying to bring awareness to some cause that no one has ever heard of but probably would care about if they did, protests aren't going to accomplish anything. Really, when was the last time you saw a protest on the death penalty, gay marriage, the Iraq war, abortion, or really anything that made you change your mind about it? It's hard to make a sensible, reasonable argument by yelling, blocking traffic, and trying to provoke police violence. Especially these days when any event at all is going to have some kind of protest.

In France, popular protesting coupled with strikes has regularly made the government back off some laws.

That's because in France, the mob burns cars, smashes windows and in general makes it absolutely clear that they'll proceed to actual armed revolution if they're not listened to. Protesting is only useful if whoever you're protesting to knows there's an implied "or die" attached to your demands.

Speaking of Orwellian, you're a fascist. No one is rioting. That's a lie that you just made up. I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot". What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful. So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.

It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing. They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right. If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent. And you can't take away the first amendment rights of most of the crowd just because it might contain a few trouble-makers.

As to what they might be trying to accomplish, you don't seem to have thought about it too hard. It doesn't take much research to learn that the nature of the G20 organization is undemocratic. How does a country get represented in these talks? It's by invitation only. Poor countries are not welcome at these talks. Neither are poor people.

This meeting is simply the rich people who run the world getting together outside of the formal bounds of government to decide how the world will be run in order to protect their interests. The world's poor people will not be represented.

I think that might have something to do with why people are protesting. So what do you suppose that you were accomplishing with your slanderous tales of "riots" and "punks"? Besides being a fascist, I mean.

2 a : public violence, tumult, or disorder b : a violent public disorder; specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent

Given some of the footage I've seen [mediaite.com]... that would seem to fit it... or are people grabbing dumpsters and running them towards the police something ordinary and peaceful protestors do?

>That's a lie that you just made up.

Such a shame that the word 'lie' has lost all meaning over the last 8 years.

For what he said to be a lie... he would have to know the truth and be deliberately trying to say or imply otherwise. He could be dead wrong... as could you... however you are offering no more than him but instead come off looking rather petty with your name calling.

>I've read several accounts of what has been going on, and I find nothing about damage or what I would call a "riot".

Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage [google.com] turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).

Care to offer some links to some of these bits you've read with no mention of damage?

>What the protesters are accused of is "unlawful assembly", but I've also found nothing about what makes the gathering unlawful.

Just because you have the right to free speech does not mean you are free to exercise it where you want. Some areas (including Pittsburgh) require permits for certain types of activities so as to try to prevent those activities from interfering with the rights of others.

Those groups who were accused of 'unlawfully assembly' failed to acquire such permits.

Interestingly enough... many of the Tea Parties planned ahead and did.

>So that makes you a fascist who hates our constitution and our freedoms, in my book.

And you are a moron who does not understand our constitution or our freedoms... not just in my book, but in demonstrated fact, as evidenced by this post of yours.

>It doesn't matter what they think they are accomplishing.

Amazing... you've actually said something correct here, congrats!

>They have a first amendment right to protest, and shooting them with pain cannons seems to fly in the face of that right.

It depends on if they are breaking the law while exercising that right.

I too have the right to free speech... however if I show up outside of your front door with a bullhorn at 3 am to express it with a lecture on... why Coke is better than Pepsi, I will be arrested (as I should).

If I were to return with a group of friends the next night to protest my arrest, break a few windows and refuse to leave when the police come, they would once again be legally obligated (rightly so) to arrest us.

>If someone breaks a window, obviously that person should be arrested, but you can't arrest people for crimes that you think they might be about to commit when there is no evidence that any crime is imminent.

You started correct... but then just had to go off on another nonsensical tangent... unless you wish to provide specific evidence from this case of someone being arrested for just being there based on the fear that they MIGHT commit a crime...

I only read the first few paragraphs of your post as it was so full of BS I couldn't even go on.

Given some of the footage I've seen [mediaite.com]... that would seem to fit it...

For anyone who didn't watch thevideo [mediaite.com] he posted it shows the police already having described it as unlawful assembly and have already began firing in tear gas and using the "sound cannon". A large amount of the crowd are journalists. The garbage dumpsters thing was a few people rolling it towards the police, it was pretty pathetic and in no way made it a riot. Even so considering the police were already using force to try and disperse them it is well known that this can cause people to riot (see G20 protests in London and the kettling) and so it can be the police that causes the violence in the first place.

Really? Your Google-foo must be weak... mine though is strong, because a quick search for g 20 pittsburgh damage [google.com] turns up 290k hits... repeating a number of ~50k in damage (20k of which sounds to be due to one man).

Haha yes your google-foo is so strong that you think that the number of results from an unquoted query on google proves anything. Did you even look at the first link google responds with?
Well here [msn.com] it is.
The first paragraph:
"PITTSBURGH - A vociferous but peaceful group of several thousand people marched for miles through downtown Pittsburgh on Friday, united by opposition to the Group of 20 summit but expressing a diversity of mostly liberal causes as an army of stone-faced riot police watched their every move"
So in summary if you are trying to correct someone for spouting bullshit don't bullshit yourself.

If you want to understand why the are protesting then I suggest you read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. There are dozens of other great books and articles available at mises.org.

Fundamentally what G-20 is doing is coordinating their monetary inflation policies so that they can monetize their debts on pace with each other. If they did not then countries would be at risk of financial collapse. They have no intention of doing anything to actually solve the problem with global economy.

Rather than allowing the required process of price decline, wage decline, and general financial depression they are pumping inflation into the game to artificially keep prices high so no one notices the prices are changing. This is price control. But salaries effective buying power is plummeting. Need proof? Check the price of hard commodities like Gold, Silver, and even Mac & Cheese (up 14% in 2 months).

The G-20 is trying to coordinate all of this so that everyone's effective buying power falls in unison to help stabilize prices and trade.

Left to our own devices, the US would become a export nation because of falling wages. But first we need the industrial infrastructure to do this -- which we have largely lost over the last 50 years. Which means we probably won't really recover during most of our lifetimes.

Currently the United States does not recognize the Gold or Silver elements (Au, Ag) as legal tender. However if you were to resort to a pure cash (Federal Reserve Notes) in your pocket over bank check money in your account (no ATM, Credit Card, Check) this would put a massive strain on the banks resulting in a national bank run and federal reserve collapse.

Unfortunately, if everyone in the nation decided on 12/1/2009 to go to their local banks and start withdrawing all their money in cash two things would happen:

Bank Holidays would be called for and prevent banks from collapse, thanks to the Federal Reserve System.

Be prepared to personally defend your assets with extreme prejudice. Meaning, home theft will become out of control as people attempt to prey on their neighbors. Buy a shotgun.

This may sound extreme. But hypothetically, if this was done for only a couple of days and then everyone returned their money to the banks a week later it would be sufficient to show how truly fraudulent the economy has been since 1971 when we left the gold standard, allowing fractional reserve banking to run without any controls.

There's good reason for returning to a gold standard. It's impossible to defraud the citizens if they have a money that has both exchange value and commodity value. The dollar today has no commodity value (it's paper) but allegedly holds exchange value. The exchange value is only as good as those willing to use it. Confederate money (1860-1870's) isn't used much for money exchange because there's no faith in it.

As far as I can tell, they're just a bunch of punks who are causing damage and rioting for the sake of causing damage and rioting under the false pretense of standing up for something.

I'm actually in Pittsburgh. Perhaps 8-9 miles away from where these events occurred. What is missing is that many of the people who have been subjected to this are innocent observers. Sound cannons and OC canisters don't discriminate between the people who are actually causing a problem and the people who are just protesting a

Hmm...I am marked a troll merely for pointing out the fact that the police are using nonlethal methods rather than randomly shooting actual bullets and killing people,

I can't speak for those modding you troll, but most of us don't think the police are using tasers and sound cannons instead of killing people. It's naive in the extreme to think that if they hadn't a method of pain compliance such as this sound weapon, those people would have been shot and killed. People are objecting to (a) the police being able to use the infliction of pain to control whoever they want and (b) their willingness to do so against people who are gathering to speak out against perceived injustice, meet and exchange views and publicise their cause - none of which merits being driven off by police forces with pain weapons.

On the other hand, you have to consider the fact that the weapons that have been used in the past in place of this "sound cannon" for crowd control - rubber bullets and wooden batons, for example - are significantly more likely to cause bodily harm, including permanent damage and "fatal aneurisms". And they are significantly harder to escape.

True, but: there is a mental (and often legal) barrier for the use of any weapon, and the less harmful a weapon is perceived to be, the lower that barrier is. Google "taser death" or "pepper spray injury"; cops perceive tasers and pepper spray to be harmless, so they use them indiscriminately.And speaking of indiscriminate use, there is also the matter of target discrimination: you have to mentally pick a person to strike with a baton and then physically hit him. You have to aim every rubber bullet you fire. This? Just sweep the entire crowd with the sound cannon - after all, it's harmless!

Back in the day, it was expected that the mere intimidation factor of troops carrying rifles with fixed bayonets would quell any riot. Instead, lack of non-lethal options contributed to the shootings at Kent State, Jackson State, and elsewhere.

Were I a rioter, I'd rather contend with weapons designed to be less-lethal than ball ammo, or nightsticks (skull fracture, anyone?), or pepper spray.

You have the right to freely assemble, everyone knows that. But nowhere - in no so-called constitution - does it say you also have the right to hear when you're assembled. Nor do you have the right to leave the assembly retaining all your ability to hear.

Once we learn our civic rights, and what we're not entitled to, we'll be a much happier and easier people for the government to govern.

Well, to be fair, you have a right to assemble _peacefully_. Quite a bit of the 'protesters' were smashing windows, burning, and otherwise destroying nearby private property. So it really all depends on who specifically they were using it on. Which personally I would bet was probably the wrong people, but I also have absolutely no evidence for that...

Ever seen the results of a panic in a crowd?They can't maneuver to save their lives, literally.Extended periods in the area of effect is going to be absolutely unavoidable.

I know the people pushing for these weapons show "examples" of targets getting out of the way quickly and efficiently. Of course, these are rigged. The targets are trained individuals (often military or police) who are in limited quantities (never seen more than a dozen at once) and are not panicking because they know exactly what's going to happen, exactly what to do, and how to evacuate the test area. That is as much of an unrealistic situation as using the film work of a Hollywood stuntman to show that it's safe to fall down stairs.

Well, if people would RTFA, they'd see the "brief periods" is not how long you stand in front of the weapon, but how long they use it. As mentioned in the article, riot police used a "brief blast" that caused the crowd to recoil, giving the riot police room to safely use tear gas and bean bag projectiles.

The police don't turn this thing on and leave it running. That WOULD cause deafness. They only use it as needed in brief bursts. I'm sure there's probably some "training" they make the users of the device go through, just like the training they do for the Taser.

"OSHA also states that "exposure to impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level" (CFR 1910.95(b)(2))"

This thing runs at 151db, and it's a tight beam so there'll be little volume loss with distance. No matter how brief the blast it will cause hearing damage. This is a device designed for permanently disabling people without visible damage, and it should be banned under international law just as blinding weapons are. Everyone who makes/sells/uses this device should be executed for war crimes.

There is actually two settings on the LRAD, normal and maximum. Maximum can only be unlocked with a key. Normal settings wouldn't damage anyone's hearing/ears. From the videos i'm guessing it's on normal.. or people seriously would have been running away from it.

I saw no situation in which this weapon was "needed" at all. Was the mob dangerous?

just like the training they do for the Taser

The training is apparently, "this is safer than a gun, so fire away!"

Never, ever, ever should a taser be used when someone's safety isn't at risk. Ever. But you see it used as a compliance device all the time. We are not the police's slaves. But step out of line, boy, and you get the lash.

Yeah they're not as useful anymore but in the early 70s these were great for crowd control at protests; hippies would just plop down in them and light up a doobie and forget what they were protesting about. Now, if they could get this sound cannon to blast Pink Floyd....

Next thing you know they will tell us that all that water usage at a Space Shuttle launch is not necessary for sound suppression, and it's perfectly safe to have yourself right next to the shuttle launch, your hearing won't be blasted to kingdom come.

All loud sounds are damaging, no matter how short the bust actually is. The hair follicles within the ear cannot grow back, once damaged that's it. That's why we have progressively worse hearing in old age.

That is fucking horrible! Why do they even need to disperse a crowd of only a few hundred people!? I know that if I were there, it would just piss me off, and make me want to attack the vehicles! I'm normally a peaceful guy, but when people unfairly fuck with me, I just makes me pissed off.

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them... Or maybe that would be "resisting... something" and you'd get arrested? Ugh, this is really fucked up.-Taylor

Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this,

Not really. There's something called bone conduction, and it actually accounts for around 70% of your hearing. Your skull literally conducts the sound to your inner ear. This is also why your voice always sounds weird when you hear a recording of it played back to you.

So the 150 decibel annoying noise would probably only be around 95 decibels with earplugs, but even that is pretty loud. Especially if, as another poster noted, they were playing Celine Dion. Then it would be past the pain threshold.

It isn't done to give an excuse to disperse. They don't need any. It is done to clearly mark the movements as "unlawful" in the media and in peaceful protesters and to prevent any kind of massive public support.

The use of agents provocateurs is standard practice at these sort of events. You can't legally break up a peaceful riot, so you send men in, incite the crowd, and then break up the riot you started. It happened at the last G20 in london [guardian.co.uk]. It happened at the WTO protests in Seattle. And you can bet your ass it's happening here.

Having lived in Seattle, and known people who were in the WTO Seattle protests, I'd have to tell you that you are full of crap. The Seattle PD is one of the best in the country. Our former police chief is even more making marijuana legal. The groups that caused the trouble in the Seattle WTO protests were already very active. They weren't incited, they came with the intention of causing trouble. Normal people weren't incited, as you suggest, into literally destroying specific pre-targeted downtown businesses. It's actually somewhat insulting you'd suggest so.

Just because the police force is one of the best doesn't mean they don't deploy agent provocateurs.

I'm pro-police most of the time. I fully support their actions in fighting crime in the community. But most police forces are way too heavy handed against peaceful protestors. If the protest is peaceful but politically charged, the higher-ups deem it necessary to break it up by any means necessary.

"The use of agents provocateurs is standard practice at these sort of events. You can't legally break up a peaceful riot, so you send men in, incite the crowd, and then break up the riot you started. It happened at the last G20 in london. It happened at the WTO protests in Seattle. And you can bet your ass it's happening here."

There's a self-serving, conspiracy mindset. When the Conservatives and Libertarians were protesting during the town hall meetings, and holding their tea parties, there wasn't nearly t

Why exactly do we need to import military devices to keep citizens from embarrassing government? If you can't handle the fact that some portion of the population disagrees with you or your policy you should leave office. Repressing our natural socio-political means of expression only forces the act underground, and that's where a once healthy form of expression can become dangerous.

The importance of the rights of the people isn't just for the people, it also helps protect the stability and longevity of the government and other business/economic forces by providing a means for compromise, which is often better for all parties then forcing unilateral action. A government for and of the people simply makes healthier economic sense.

Because you're the 5th poster and you've apparently gotten the cognitive dissonance down to an art, since you're complaining about nobody complaining about "Obama doing it" in an article complaining about it being done.

Obama and the Congress have nothing to do with this. To try to equate the Democrats and the Republicans is absurd, when you see cases of Bush protesters being arrested for wearing a t-shirt, or being harassed by police for a bumper sticker, but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so (and before anyone points out that it's their 2nd Amendment right, I agree, but it's also their 1st Amendment right to wear a t-shirt, and of the two, it interesting that Republicans fear words to a greater extent than Democrats fear guns!)

This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy. And if you want to make any equivalencies between Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, that equivalency should be that in either case, the rich are still going to use force and violence to get what they want, and the media is going to side with the rich.

Security was not handled by the city of Pittsburgh, although they did provide a good proportion of the actual policemen. The summit was designated [post-gazette.com] a National Special Security Event [wikipedia.org] by the Department of Homeland Security, a designation which by law puts the Secret Service, a police force closely associated with the President, in charge of operations.

I highly doubt the President had any input into the operations other than (at most) telling his agencies to do what they saw best. I could be wrong, who knows? But he sure didn't do anything like this to the teabaggers.

Additionally, unless both the federal laws are severely more out of whack with the Constitution than I'm aware (and yes, I'm aware that the federal laws and the Constitution haven't seen eye-to-eye on many things for a rather long time), and the states and cities are far more spineless and co

The police who used this? Yeah. We don't need police driving around inflicting pain on any individuals or groups that they or the government disapproves of. Now what law or part of the constitution does this contravene and what steps are necessary to bring a prosecution?

In the end, the only thing that truly keeps governments accountable is the threat of disorder and revolution. Governments that are unhindered by this fear because of their willingness to use "as much force as is necessary" are usually the most tyrannical. Think of France. They have a history of protesting and if necessary rioting. Their government has possibly as a result of this, enacted many policies that are directly to the benefit of the public.

Of course they get away with it. Who is there to oppose them? If you recall the police are supposed to be there to protect people and maintain order. Given that scenario there's no need for a group of organised civilians to keep people safe. Given that the reality is that the police are in the pay of the wealthy, what are we to do to protect ourselves from them?

There's lots of talk about the technological singularity which appears likely to manifest in the future. Similarly, I'm increasingly of the opinion

As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, given that the slightest amount of violence becomes the focus for all media attention, overriding all legitimate concerns expressed by peaceful people, it's quite clear that the most direct way to suppress any dissenting voices it to create violence and blame it on dissenters.

The balance would come at the point where certain individuals no longer have the power to act (or coerce others to act) in any way they see fit under the guise of acting in the public interest.

This pattern if offensive in its simplicity and the extent to which it occurs; "Hey people we have a common enemy - allow us take control and we will keep you safe."

In demonstrations all over the planet, the dudes in the ski masks are usually undercover pigs inciting violence. This is so old it ain't funny. They do it all the freaking time. They've gotten caught at it not once, but *numerous* times. I've seen it several times back in the nam protest days, and it continues. The "battle of seattle" has plenty of evidence on it, just effin google it (anyone), just tons of witnesses who saw the official cops in uniform and darth vader gear IGNORING the "black ski masked anarchists", either pigs or military pigs, who were allowed to rampage along, then beating peaceful people just walking or even just sitting someplace because of the "excuse" they got from their own guys. You want even worse? Google for "operation gladio", 100% proven verifiable fact, they freaking blew folks up and stuff like that, hits, assassinations, terrible "false flag" operations. This was POLICE AND MILITARY doing it to their own people, so they could blame it on..others. Phony "terrorists".

And I also know some cops *personally* who have been ORDERED to do this shit. It's COMMON. I know military veterans who have done this in war areas, commit massacres on villagers then plant evidence so it looked like the "bad guys" did it. They told me about it, they didn't like it, but close to getting a pension, you do what you are told, and the younger ones dig it, they love it, they are violence freaks. That's all they hire as cops anymore, steroid popping violence freaks, mostly with military combat experience where every one they see is a "target" or could be.

Now, I wasn't at this latest protest deal, but I'd bet something similar is going on, because it is their standard modus operandi. Not to say it is always that case, but it is WAY more common than not.

This is the real problem - certain groups within society who will shut of whatever brain they have when cash is waved in their general direction. They need to provide a natural counterbalance to the ability of their employers to act in an unchecked manner - their employers require it as much as anyone - if they are to stay sane, by which I mean being part of a fully-connected graph of common understanding.

They talk about the 'training' you get in the military, but at the end of the day, you're still expected to pack a rifle and engage in live fire 'if needed'. My daughter was supposed to be a mechanic in Iraq, but spent her 18 month tour guarding the motor pool while civilian contractors did the actual wrenching. My nephew was a medic in Iraq, assigned to hang out with the Special Forces troops in Feluga(sp) 4 years ago and only bandaged up captured 'guerillas' rounded up for questioning, after needing to put bullets in them to begin with.

Back during my time (late Vietnam War era), a lot of combat troops came home and went to school on the GI Bill. Big Unc paid for up to 4 years of college, no payroll deductions during your active duty time, and if you were a draftee & out in 2 years, no biggie, you still got the full 4 year ride. The troops coming out today don't have that option, they have the Montgomery GI Bill [va.gov] which requires veterans to put aside money for college during their active duty and Big Unc coughs up 8x what the vet puts away for up to 36 months. It's only in the last year or so that they finally voted in something close to the GI Bill I knew when I got out.

Now, considering that Big Unc wants trained killers around and really doesn't do a lot to help them readjust to civilian life if they don't get stop-lossed back into uniform, and considering the almost double digit unemployment in the US today, is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?

is there any wonder combat troops sign up as cops as the only viable job they're halfways trained for?

The way we treat soldiers is shameful, but there's no way a soldier is in anyway trained as a cop. I'd say that they are less qualified for being a soldier, since they've been trained to kill and subjugate, while cops are supposed to keep the peace and build ties with the community - the army is a wholly improper tool for policing.

A very mainstream reporter for the Guardian (a major national UK newspaper) documented her direct experience of an undercover police officer agitating for violence at a protest in London. He was showing people how to unhook barriers and trying to persuade people (unsuccessfully) to charge the police. Even a little common sense indicates some of the more violent protestors in London were undercover police. For example, in a protests involving thousands, lasting from morning into the night, suddenly a few people in balaclavas kick in a window whilst coincidentally surrounded by photographers. And were they arrested? No. There were proven police agitators masquerading as protestors at a city in the US, but I'm afraid I don't recall what the event was. The UK police have also engaged in what is now called "kettling" where they push as many people together as possible and keep them there in a confined area. There's no actual reason for it, but it does make for some good photos and a better chance you'll get to arrest someone for trying to get out of it.

You say that the legitimate arguments of the protestors are obscured by "these cretins". To that I point out that police forces have been proven quite willing to provide these people for exactly that purpose and secondly, its the media that are the problem. After all, is it natural or logical that three people kicking in a window should grab all the media coverage rather than the thousand-times that number of people peacefully protesting and making intelligent cases for why they are protesting to anyone who'll listen? No, it doesn't make sense, so why do the media focus on these minor and outlying cases? Honestly, in London, there's a window being kicked in somewhere on any day you care to mention. So can you really blame some bloke in a ski mask that there's so little actual interviews and coverage of the hundreds, often thousands, demonstrating about an important issue? No, you have to blame the media for that.

A very mainstream reporter for the Guardian (a major national UK newspaper) documented her direct experience of an undercover police officer agitating for violence at a protest in London.

Actually, you bring up a good point: How much should we trust The Guardian? Slashdot have previously reported on stories reported by The Daily Mail, which is about as reputable as The National Enquirer (ie. The Onion frequently contains more factual reporting)

I'm no Brit, although I've spent a fair amount of time there. My (largely informal) opinion of the UK media is that "tabloid journalism" is rampant. Papers that don't stoop to this level seem to be edged out of the market. Ironically, the governmen

I don't see any "anarchists in ski masks committing acts of violence and vandalism" in any footage [youtube.com] of this weapon being used [youtube.com]. There are people standing around peacefully. A loudspeaker orders the peaceful crowd to disperse, "by order of the Pittsburgh chief of police", as if the Pittsburgh chief of police has the right to override people's right to peaceably assemble. Still nobody does anything violent, and then the police fire a weapon at the protestors.

We're guaranteed the right to assembly, but not the right to unharrassed assembly *g*Or maybe we're guaranteed the right to assembly, provided we own rebreather gas masks (for pepper spray), bullet vests (for tasers), body armor (for rubber bullets), silvered full body suits with Peltier coolers mounted on heatsinks with large fans (for infrared heat guns), and earplugs rated for 60dB reduction (for sound cannons) at frequencies up to at least 60kHz (for ultrasonic pain generators). Until, of course, that type of body protection is considered a military-grade weapon and heavy penalties are given to a citizen for owning or using these banned items..."What good is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?"

How is it that I get the distinct impression that if a bunch of whiney, bitchy Mexican hippies were to cross the border because of police oppression and decide to settle in the US, you wouldn't exactly cheer about it?

Immigration law isn't supposed to be fair. There are unequal quotas for immigrants from different countries. Why aren't you complaining about the unfairness of that? Why is it you only complain about unfairness when poor brown people walk across the border?

We are already screwed. Congress and friends have already got control of a disturbing amount of power in the US and no one really did anything about it as it is.

Well, the soviets had a disturbing amount of power, and they collapsed. There's an event rapidly approaching, which will drastically reduce the amount of power the federal government wields, and that is the collapse of the dollar. If nobody will take your bad checks, it's kind of hard to hire goons.

Please note that OSHA does not permit ANY intermittent exposure, for any duration, above 115 dB(A), and also limits impact/impulse noise to 140 dB(A) even when wearing hearing protection

150 dB(A) in the presence of non-protected individuals is off-the-charts ridiculous and in the workplace would (a) get you shut down by OSHA and (b) get your (easily, successfully) sued by your victims.

This is one case where I hope an ambulance chaser finds a few good victims and sues this police department back to the stone ages.

I have to wonder what the group dynamic is... If you have a mass of people who can't get away from the sound because they are in the center of a large group of people, what do they do? Duck and cover their ears while staying in the sound? If so, that could be detrimental. It's fine if you are the sole target because "getting away" from the sound is easy.

Is the government just trying to provoke violence to justify more totalitarian actions? Is the supreme court taking a nap and won't hear cases that would limit the amount of intervention that can occur with a protest?

The Supreme Court doesn't need to care about jack shit. The civilian population is completely toothless, at this point.

a) No more than 15% of the mainstream population cares about the political situation, tops.

b) As long as a) remains true, the government can slaughter whoever it wants, with impunity, and the ovine majority will not care as long as too large a number are not killed at once, and it doesn't interfere with the source of the majority's distractions.

As long as the majority get their iphones, their McDonald's, and the latest info about what Paris Hilton is doing this week, any totalitarian behaviour is barely going to register to them as background noise. Even if it does, all the government has to do, for the most part, is have the media play the anthem and wave a few flags, and they'll promptly go straight back to sleep.

I don't get it either. Friggin PRO CASTRO demonstrators
marched right through the intersection of 18th and U Streets
when I lived in Washington DC, and nobody cared. The DC police
escorted them through the intersection, and along U St.

You've never heard about this protest, because the police
were cool about it. Nobody takes a pro-Castro protest seriously.
The G-20 protestors are being taken seriously, and it's backfiring
on the cops. If they treated these protestors with the same
civility that the pro-C

Here is the clip. [youtube.com] YouTube is processing it now (might take a few minutes). The HD version should also be at the same link in an hour or so (again, YouTube processing time).

The footage is a bit rough since I just threw it together now. However you kind of get the idea. People were standing around just watching and the police decided to disperse the crowd with the sound cannon. Apologies for the bad camera work - we weren't filming anything in particular and the police refused to let us set up near the major news networks. Interestingly, they also pushed back another Japanese news network.

But lets not cause them any discomfort. After all, if this device is used on terrorists, it must be a terrorist weapon. It shouldn't be uses on people who merely show up and trash your city. Can't have that.

Good old agents provocateurs. Works every time. You'd think we'd catch on.

There are a few destructive nuts out there among the protest groups, and there are also black-hats pretending to be protesters who are hired to start trouble and thus give the authorities the excuse to hammer down control measures, as well as allow the media to spin anti-establishment people as fringe-dangerous. All you have to do is drug and wind-up one borderline loon to make an entire legion of well-meaning and responsible people look bad. It's an old, easy and as it happens, well-documented system. Do a Google around for it. The term "COINTELPRO" will come up. There is a lot of fascinating reading you can do on the subject.

The objective is to keep the little people from forming groups of any power and to keep people like you misinformed and afraid of, (and in love with) the wrong parties.

Remember; it wasn't protesters who trashed the economy and made off with billions of YOUR tax dollars with no repercussions. It was the people being protested against.

On the other hand, some of us consider lives and due process more important than your (or my) stuff. I would be among those. I don't want to see the police appointed judge, jury, and executioner. That's why we have judges and juries.

Course, when LRAD and the tear gas and concussion grenades are coming in, things get a lot less peaceful looking with all the running around screaming, in turn justifying the LRAD, tear gas, and concussion grenades. Fiendishly clever in its simplicity.

They are ALREADY in control of health care. That's why healthcare sucks. Big business and government, (and certainly the medical industry), are all heads of the same beast, employ the same people and worship the same masters. They just wear different labels to confuse the ever-ignorant population.

Now, the ideal is that the people should be in control of their health care through a government they put together and control.

It would require getting far too close. A shotgun isn't exactly the most concealable weapon. The shotgun-toting protester would be spotted and gunned down long before they reached shotgun range.

Purely theoretically, it would be far more effective to position snipers in tall structures in advance just like the police & military do and simply decorate the nearby area with pieces of the $50K cannon. If they lost several of these very expensive un